The defendants were the owners of the steamer Caroline Miller, in December, 1887, and January, 1888, which they used as common carriers for passengers and merсhandize between the city of New York, in the state of New York, and Bangor, in this state; and by said steamer brought from New York into Bangor on the 9th of December, 1887, fifty-six Italians, who came into this state to work as laborers on the Canadian Pacific Railroad. But for some reason they ceased to work on said road аnd on the 14th of December, 1887, returned to the city of Bangor, and it is alleged by the plaintiff were destitute and in need of relief, and the overseers of the pоor of said city on application therefor took charge of them and furnished them with relief as paupers. And on the 19th day of said December, it is clаimed by the plaintiff that the city through its officers tendered to the defendants at their wharf and at their steamer in Bangor, the alleged paupers, and requested that the defendants should receive them and carry them back to New York. This the defendants declined to do, and thereupon the city paid their passаge on board said steamer from Bangor to New York. >
This action is brought to recover for the necessary supplies furnished said alleged paupers аfter they were tendered to the defendants, and to recover the money paid for their fare for transportation to New York. The plaintiff claims tо recover by virtue of Sec. 50 of Chap. 24, of the Revised Statutes of this state, which reads as follows : "Any common carrier who brings into the state a person uоt having a settlement therein, shall remove him beyond the state, if he falls into distress within a year; provided, that such person is delivered on board a boat
The defendants claim that this statute is unconstitutional and void, and furnishes the plaintiff no ground for the mаintenance of this action. And this is the question for our determination.
Congress has power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes.” Constitution of the United States, Aid. 1, § 8, Clause 3. That the carrying • of persons from a foreign country into the United States, or from state to state is commerce within the meaning of this clause of the constitution is too well settled to justify the citation of authorities. The bringing of persons by common carriеrs, then, from another state into this state is commerce between the states. Is the state statute which we have quoted a regulation of commercе? We think it is. In Railroad Co. v. Husen,
But it is claimed that this is the exercise оf the police power of the state. That the State in the exercise of its police power may, indirectly to some extent, affect cоmmerce between foreign countries and the United States or between States, may be conceded. Just what the police power of the state embraces, and how far it extends does not appear to have, been definitely determined. It may exercise it to require quarantine or inspection before landing, of persons brought from abroad. It may exercise it to prevent the landing of passengers infected with contagious disease. It may exercise it over the landing of convicted felons from-abroad. It may exercise it over persons who have been subject to contagious disease so as to be liable
This statute is broad and general in its terms. It embraces all persons brought into the state, having no settlement in the state ; and as it is found in the pauper statute, the term settlement must be held to meаn a pauper settlement, without regard to the fact whether the person is poor at the time when he is brought into the state, or wealthy. He may be worth thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars, when he is landed in the state, and from the various vicissitudes that men are subject to, within a year from that time may not have a dоllar, may be destitute and in need of support as a pauper. He may when brought into the state be a citizen of the state, having no settlement in it; and still under the terms of the statute if he becomes a pauper within a year, it is the duty of the carrier who brings him here to take him and carry him out of the state. By what authority may it be done ? A citizen of the state has the legal right to come into it, either with the aid of a common carrier or without such aid. Every citizen of the United Statеs has the
But it .is unnecessary to discuss the effect of this statute further. Its provisions are too broad and sweeping to be considered within the power of the state. It is the exercise of a power •granted solely to the United States, which the state cannot exercise. It is so general that, as wе have said, it applies to all persons brought into the state by a carrier, without regard to wealth or poverty when brought in; but undertakes to impose upon the carrier the burden of removing or supporting him, if he shall within the time named, become destitute.
It is said by counsel that it is aimed against pauperism and may be sustained as valid as to persons who are paupers when brought into the state. Its terms are general. It cannot be divided and held to' be valid as to one class of persons and invalid as to others.
Judgment for defendants.